Skip to content


Vishwa Ranjan Vs. Managing Director, Arihant Industries Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided On
Case NumberCase No. A-716 of 1996
Judge
AppellantVishwa Ranjan
RespondentManaging Director, Arihant Industries Ltd.
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 14(1)(d) - comparative citation: 1998 (1) cpj 188.....jurisdiction was raised. district forum-ii upheld the objection on the ground that the opposite party company had no office in delhi and no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this commission. aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. we have heard the appellant in person and mr. raman k. soo company secretary of the respondent company and have carefully gone through me records. 2. in the reply filed in the course of the appeal it was admitted in para 5(b) that the respondent company had a branch office at new delhi. in view of the said admission the fora at delhi had jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 11(2)(a) of the consumer protection act. 3. the next grievance of the appellant is that the payment as redemption.....
Judgment:

A.P. Chowdhri, President:

1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Vishwa Ranjan, complainant for short, was holder of 15 redeemable debentures of Rs.l50/-each of M/s. Arihant Industries Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. The debentures carried interest @ 14% p.a. and was payable every six months. In his complaint dated 12.7.1995, the complainant sought direction to the opposite party to pay the redemption money as also the interest which had been agreed from 1.4.1994 onwards according to the terms and conditions of the debentures. The case was contested by the opposite party. Interalia, objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised. District Forum-II upheld the objection on the ground that the opposite party Company had no office in Delhi and no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Raman K. Soo Company Secretary of the respondent Company and have carefully gone through me records.

2. In the reply filed in the course of the appeal it was admitted in para 5(b) that the respondent Company had a branch office at New Delhi. In view of the said admission the FORA at Delhi had jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.

3. The next grievance of the appellant is that the payment as redemption money, on the one hand, and as interest, on the other hand had been made after considerable delay resulting in loss and harassment to the complainant.

4. The following table sets out the amount due on account of redemption money in respect of the debentures in question.

InstallmentDue onActually Paid
1st installment30.9.199515.12.1995
2nd installment30.9.19963.2.1996
With regard to interest the admitted position is as under :
Interest due onPaid on
30.9.199430.12.1995
31.3.199513.12.1995
30.9.199515.12.1995
31.3.19963.2.1997
30.9.19963.2.1997
31.3.1997Under process.
5. A perusal of the above charts shows that there has been delay in payment of both the redemption instalment as well as interest. There is no reason why the complainant should not be paid interest @ 14% p.a. on the amount paid after causing delay. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and respondent is directed to pay within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order interest calculated in terms of the above direction together with Rs. 2,500/- as compensation and costs. If the respondent failed to comply with the order, it will be open to me appellant to invoke jurisdiction of the Fora u/Sec. 27. A copy of the order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-II. The appeal stands disposed of in these terms.
Appeal allowed.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //